The Existence of God: The Argument From Motion

[IWantGod]

Now call me skeptical if you like, but if you start with a belief that there is only one conclusion, then the questions that you ask and the responses that you give yourself will lead to only one answer.

In other words you are asserting that the prime-mover argument is a circular argument, and i disagree. If you think it is then you have to demonstrate that. Simply arguing that people who believe in God only think that the argument succeeds because they believe in God isn’t convincing to me because there is a method in place by which one can know if the argument is correct or not. The only way you are not going to agree is if you don’t agree with the method in qeustion. In other-words you subscribe to scientism, the belief that scientific knowledge is the only form of reliable knowledge. For those of us who accept metaphysics, the Prime-mover argument follows logically and irrefutably so long as you understand the argument, that’s what counts. You simply don’t understand the metaphysics behind the argument and you have demonstrated that you don’t understand by applying scientific skepticism to an epistemological method that doesn’t require the scientific method to achieve the kind of knowledge.it sets out to achieve.

Also Aristotle was not a Christian. Aquinas based his arguments on the work of Aristotle

 

[Wesrock]

We could just say Bradskii’s line of argument only concludes the argument is false because he’s starting with the assumption that atheism is true, but that wouldn’t really be fair, either.

AINg, I am working up on a formal reply to that other post of yours. It’s in the works.

 

[Bradskii]

It’s not circular. It’s linear.

Here’s the answer. Here’s where we need to start to get there. Join the dots.

 

[Bradskii]

To use a phrase such as ‘the assumption that atheism is true’ is a nonsensical statement. That which you believe (or disbelieve) may be true or false. But if you are being honest then your belief (or lack of belief) is always true.

I’m not holding out too much hope that you can delve too deeply into any metaphysical matters if you can’t get that rather simple philosophical concept correct.

 

[IWantGod]

You’re going to have to explain how your assertion disproves the argument in the OP. Right now as it stands it doesn’t sound like much of an argument at all as far as the OP is concerned. A straw-man and a red herring might sound convincing to the uninitiated, but it doesn’t convince me.

 

[Wesrock]

Post 1 of 2

I’ve broken up your individual objections so that I can reply to them in a more systematic fashion.

AINg OBJECTION 1: The example of a chandelier being suspended fom a ceiling only considers the use of chain links to hang the chandelier. However, that does not exhaustively account for all the ways a chandelier could be suspended in position. One such alternative is the use of magnets and magnetic fields to hold the chandelier in place. Therefore, the explanation does not follow.

REPLY TO AINg OBJECTION 1: For illustrative purposes an example using chain links was used, but the argument follows whatever method of suspension is used. Consider the example of magnetic fields. The chandelier only remains suspended when in the magnetic field. Remove the magnetic field and the chandelier falls. The magnetic field is itself caused by the magnets. Remove the magnets and the chandelier also falls. The causal series here remains hierarchical, for each and every moment the chandelier remains suspended is dependent on the continued acting power of the magnetic field and the magnets.

AINg OBJECTION 2: Furthermore, the example of the chandelier being suspended from chain links is a contrived, idealized scenario that doesn’t represent what is going on in reality. Therefore, the argument is false.

REPLY TO AINg OBJECTION 2: The scenario is indeed idealized. That is not a faulty teaching method. For example, in introductory physics courses its common to model reality without friction, so as to fascilitate learning by not making it too complicated for people learning material that they are very unfamiliar with. This does not make the mathematical equations and what they state about reality false. We could indeed “add friction” to the scenario. The statement “actualize the potential of the chandelier to be suspended from the ceiling” could be restated as “actualize the potential of the chandelier’s position over time to be described as function of time F(t).” We could furthermore account for all of the causal factors, from the gravitational pull of the Earth, the Sun, the other planetary, stellar, and galactic bodies, along with their velocity and rotation, and any other causal relationships involved. At each and every moment, the potential for the chandelier’s position over time to be given by F(t) is dependent upon each and every causal factor, from the chain links to the earth’s gravity to the galaxy’s rotation. The removal of any one member at any current moment will mean the chandelier fails to continue to have that potency actualized. It is an hierarchical series.

AINg OBJECTION 3: The Earth maintains its orbit around the Sun, and it does so without the use of chain links or magnetic forces or other causes. Therefore, your claim is false.

REPLY TO AINg OBJECTION3: On the contrary, the Earth’s orbit is continuously caused by the gravity well it sits in, which is itself caused by the Sun.

 

[Wesrock]

Post 2 of 2

AINg OBJECTION 4: You have only assumed that the series under consideration is hierarchical, and there is the possibility of a linear series extending backwards for infinite time.

REPLY TO AINg OBJECTION 4: A series is hierarchical if the potency being actualized is momenty-by-moment derived from another causal source. In a linear series the potency that is actualized becomes indendent upon prior members. An example of a linear series is a son who continues to exist and is capable of begetting his own sons even if his own father dies. The series which our argument follows is clearly an hierarchical series. The existence of a chain link is the actualization of a potency, and it’s existence here and now is due to the existence of the iron and carbon atoms that make it up. The existence of the iron and carbon atoms that make it up exist because the protons, neutrons, and electrons that make it up exist, and so on. If the protons, neutrons, and electrons did not exist, the iron and carbon atoms would not exist. If the iron and carbon atoms did not exist, the steel link would not exist. The relationship here described is an hierarchical series, not linear. Also, refer to objection 2 for further considerations.

As to the second part of AINg OBJECTION 4, we do not deny that there is a linear series that also provides causal explanation for the steel link. These series aren’t mutually exclusive. But the linear series does not explain why the potential for existence is actualized here and now in each and every moment. It follows that the hierarchical causal series is more fundamental to the existence of the steel link than the linear series, for if the steel link or its materials are not caused to exist then any other actions that follow from the existence of the steel link are not possible. Only something that exists can act.

 

[Bradskii]

I’m not making assertions. I’m saying that you are making assumptions.

 

[Wesrock]

I’m not making assertions. I’m saying that you are making assumptions.

If you feel there must be a fallacy, point it out.

 

[AlNg]

Remove the magnetic field and the chandelier falls.

Not if the chandelier were in outer space. It could just hang there not suspended by anything. Just as the milky way galaxy or even a weightless spaceship are hanging in midspace.

It should be clear that if the ceiling were removed from this example, the chandelier could not be suspended.

This is a fallacy because a chandelier could be suspended as a weightless object in outer space.

A series is hierarchical if the potency being actualized is momenty-by-moment derived from another causal source.

The cyclical theory of the universe involves the causes lying within the universe itself and so it seems like it would be linear. You have an infinite series of a Big Bang followed by a Big Crunch followed by a Big Bang, followed by a big Crunch, ad infinitum. I see though that you admit the possibility of infinite linear causes.
On the real line you can have an infinite series of real numbers adding up to a finite real quantity such as a_n = 1/2^n.
For the movement from potentiality to actuality how would this work when you are dealing with free will. It seems that if you admit free will, then the human making the choice is the ultimate cause or the unmoved mover of making that choice. Of course if you say that the cause for the choice lies outside of the human making the choice, then if everything we do is outside of our control, man is not responsible for his actions and there is no free will. However, society has determined that in many cases a man is responsible for his choices and for his actions, which means that there are many unmoved movers, not just one.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

I’m not making assertions. I’m saying that you are making assumptions.

If you feel there must be a fallacy, point it out.

You have started with a belief in God and then worked out what is required to prove His existence.

 

[STT]

A reply to post 4 of 8:

1. Creation (the act of God) is not perfect (we know this by fact)
2. God is pure act and is the creator
3. (1) and (2) contradict each other (because creation which is God’s act must be perfect too)
4. Therefore (2) is wrong

This means that God is either not pure or He is not the creator. Which one do you pick up?

 

[STT]

Reply to post 5 of 8:

1. Knowledge is about the relationship between things
2. This requires that knower has a form
3. God (omniscient) is formless
4. (2) and (3) contradict each other
5. Therefore (3) is wrong

This means that either God is not omniscient or He has form. Which one do you pick up?

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

Bradskii:

I’m not making assertions. I’m saying that you are making assumptions.

If you feel there must be a fallacy, point it out.

You have started with a belief in God and then worked out what is required to prove His existence.

You haven’t pointed out a fallacy. If the logic is sound, it’s sound.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Wesrock:

Bradskii:

I’m not making assertions. I’m saying that you are making assumptions.

If you feel there must be a fallacy, point it out.

You have started with a belief in God and then worked out what is required to prove His existence.

You haven’t pointed out a fallacy. If the logic is sound, it’s sound.

Being logically correct (which is not the same as being true) does not preclude it from being a fallacy.

1. You can’t get something from nothing.
2. At some point there was nothing.
3. Therefore nothing exists now.

That logical. But obviously incorrect. So you need to fiddle with it so we get:

1. You can’t get something from nothing unless God exists.
2. There is something.
3. Therefore…God exists.

Point 1 uses terms other than God because if you did say God then it would be too obvious that you were making the assumption in the premise.

But when you get to point 3 you get to say, all surprised: ‘Hey look. It WAS God after all!’

 

[Wesrock]

@AlNg

Post 1 of 3

AlNg OBJECTION 5: The chandelier could exist in space, and thus be without a cause for its suspension.

REPLY TO AlNg OBJECTION 5: A chandelier in space has relative velocity/momentum/acceleration to other objects, such as the Earth, and it would still be under affect of gravitational forces and other forces which would cause its position over time to be given by function F(t), which it would not be caused to keep if any of the causal factors were removed.

However, you are focusing too much on an illustrative example and not the actual hierarchical causal series that the argument from motion uses to reason to an Unmoved Mover. The chandelier example is only intended as a stepping stone to help the reader grasp the more abstract discussion that follows. The potential of the chandelier to be suspended is not the primary example of the argument (and if the chandelier is suspended from a chain, or with magnets, or in orbit due to a gravity well, etc… the illustrative example being described is still hierarchical, anyway. Find a different unrelated illustration doesn’t change anything). It’s the potential for any given to exist being actualized that is at the heart of the discussion.

AlNg OBJECTION 6: You admit the possibility of a linear series.

REPLY TO AlNg OBJECTION 5: I don’t just admit the possibility of a linear series, I admit that there is one in addition to the hierarchical series. The two series provide explanation to an object in two distinct ways, with the hierarchical series being more fundamental to the thing’s existence. An infinite, linear series going backwards in time does not resolve the need for an Unmoved Mover being argued for here. It explains the history behind an object consideration, it does not explain why it’s potential to exist is actualized (caused) right now in this very moment.

 

[Wesrock]

@AlNg @STT

Post 2 of 3

AINg OBJECTION 7: If every movement from potentiality to actuality is caused by something external, then that would seem to eliminate free will. However, it is clear that man has free will. Therefore, the objection must be false.
REPLY TO AINg OBJECTION 7: It is not the aim of this argument to resolve the dispute between determinism and free will. However, it can be said that it is not universally held by all that an efficient cause produces a necessary effect in all circumstances, nor do I agree that the only real type of causation is that which is commonly called “efficient causation.” If the will has an efficient cause, it need only be caused to operate according to its nature, which is to exercise a voluntary will, not to be caused to deterministic decisions. Or to say another way, some things are caused to produce necessary effects, while others are caused to produce voluntary effects. Even if we admit to determinism, that would be a cause for a religious dispute/discussion. It would not be a logical flaw in the argument above. If the conclusion to determinism is believed to be untrue, and if one held that it is a consequence of this argument (I do not), that would not prove the argument false in itself, but might lead you to believe it went wrong somewhere along the way. If so, the wrong turning point needs to be identified to demonstrate the argument false.
STT OBJECTION 1:
(1) Creation (the act of God) is not perfect (we know this by fact)
(2) God is pure act and is the creator
(3) (1) and (2) contradict each other (because creation which is God’s act must be perfect too)
(4) Therefore (2) is wrong

This means that God is either not pure or He is not the creator. Which one do you pick up?

REPLY TO STT OBJECTION 1: Creation, meaning the existing beings of our experience, are not God’s act but are caused to exist by God’s act. There is no potential in the act of God, but there is actuality and potential in created beings. That God’s act is pure actuality means that it is unchanging. That there is both actuality and potential in created beings means that they have a capacity for change or even, more simply, a capacity for not existing. It has been demonstrated that God is eternal, immutable, timeless. So God does not start acting at time one (t1) and stop acting at t2, then begin another act at t3 and stop acting at t4. While created beings experience time as moments, God does not exist at moments. Rather, His one immutable act touches t1, t2, t3, t4 in His eternal now. Therefore, there is no contradiction if His creation has both actuality and potential while He does not.

Furthermore, you use the word “perfect.” By this, I can only assume you mean that it has privations, that it is act and potentiality. If you mean something else, you will have to be more specific if you wish me to address it.

 

[Wesrock]

@STT
Post 3 of 3

STT OBJECTION 2:
(1) Knowledge is about the relationship between things
(2) This requires that knower has a form
(3) God (omniscient) is formless
(4) (2) and (3) contradict each other
(5) Therefore (3) is wrong

This means that either God is not omniscient or He has form. Which one do you pick up?

REPLY TO STT OBJECTION 2: By assuming that knowledge is physical you beg the question against the argument. It has been established thatthere must be an Unmoved Mover. Also that the Unmoved Mover is immaterial. It has been established by the Principle of Proportionate Causality that the form must exist within the Unmoved Mover either virtually or eminently. This was done without first assuming restrictions on the nature of knowledge. If you wish to object that knowledge must be material and deny that abstract universals can be said to be true, that must first be established before any contradiction to the argument for the Unmoved Mover’s omniscience can be claimed.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

Bradskii:

Wesrock:

Bradskii:

I’m not making assertions. I’m saying that you are making assumptions.

If you feel there must be a fallacy, point it out.

You have started with a belief in God and then worked out what is required to prove His existence.

You haven’t pointed out a fallacy. If the logic is sound, it’s sound.

Being logically correct (which is not the same as being true) does not preclude it from being a fallacy.

1. You can’t get something from nothing.
2. At some point there was nothing.
3. Therefore nothing exists now.

That logical. But obviously incorrect.

Point #2 isn’t established in that premise or scientifically. In fact, it commits a “begging the question” fallacy.

So you need to fiddle with it so we get:

1. You can’t get something from nothing unless God exists.
2. There is something.
3. Therefore…God exists.

Point 1 uses terms other than God because if you did say God then it would be too obvious that you were making the assumption in the premise.

But when you get to point 3 you get to say, all surprised: ‘Hey look. It WAS God after all!’

We would take “nothing cannot act” as a solidly grounded premise. It’s accepted implicitly in various fields and can be further defended through reasoned arguments. Only that which is real can act. There is no assumption “unless God exists” being made in the argument made above. If you feel I assumed the conclusion from the start, please actually go into the argument and highlight where I committed such a fallacy. If the argument is faulty, it is faulty and there should be evidence of that in there somewhere. But again you are just continuing to beg the question rather than actually address the argument, which it remains clear you still haven’t read. Furthermore, that there is something doesn’t automatically mean God (moving from premise 2 to 3). If you can point out that the logic is faulty, or that the so called “divine attributes” do not follow even if there must have been something, you should be able to point out the fallacies in the argument.

 

[STT]

REPLY TO STT OBJECTION 1: Creation, meaning the existing beings of our experience, are not God’s act but are caused to exist by God’s act. There is no potential in the act of God, but there is actuality and potential in created beings. That God’s act is pure actuality means that it is unchanging. That there is both actuality and potential in created beings means that they have a capacity for change or even, more simply, a capacity for not existing. It has been demonstrated that God is eternal, immutable, timeless. So God does not start acting at time one (t1) and stop acting at t2, then begin another act at t3 and stop acting at t4. While created beings experience time as moments, God does not exist at moments. Rather, His one immutable act touches t1, t2, t3, t4 in His eternal now. Therefore, there is no contradiction if His creation has both actuality and potential while He does not.

Let me change my argument to adjust it with your notation:

(1) Creation is not perfect (we know this by fact)
(2) God is pure act and is the creator
(3) Creation must be perfect as God is pure act (God cannot create imperfect since otherwise He is responsible for privation, evil, etc.)
(4) (1) and (3) contradict each other
(5) Therefore (2) is wrong

This means that God is either not pure act or He is not the creator. Which one do you pick up?

Furthermore, you use the word “perfect.” By this, I can only assume you mean that it has privations, that it is act and potentiality. If you mean something else, you will have to be more specific if you wish me to address it.

By pure I mean that there is no privation in Him.